It must have been either the late 1970s or the early 1980s. At that time, the then minister Aziz Sait (Aziz Seth) had come to Madikeri to participate in a public function. On that occasion, a group of Muslim leaders submitted a memorandum seeking assistance for the construction or renovation of an Arabic school building, or perhaps for some other community building—I do not remember the exact purpose.
Responding to their request, Aziz Sait said, “I will do as Allah tells me,” and walked away from the event. I immediately approached him and asked, “Sir, why did you say that? Isn’t it you who has to make the decision?” Smiling, Aziz Sait replied, “That’s not what I meant. I need to gather information about the members of the committee that submitted the request. I need to know whether they are honest or corrupt. That takes time. If I immediately assure them that their request will be granted, I may make them happy for the moment, but I would not know the truth.”
His son, Tanveer Sait, is a very honest and decent person. He is not the kind of politician who seeks attention through unnecessary theatrics. He should have been chosen as a minister from Mysuru district. Likewise, H.C. Mahadevappa, another MLA from Mysuru and a close confidant of Siddaramaiah, was also left out of the cabinet. Why?
When D.K. Shivakumar took oath as Chief Minister, Mangaluru MLA U.T. Khader was inducted into the cabinet. During the recent cabinet expansion, Zameer Ahmed Khan and Rizwan Arshad from Bengaluru were also made ministers. The Congress high command had realized that Zameer, who currently enjoys significant support among the Muslim community, could not be ignored. Therefore, his inclusion became inevitable.
However, due to Siddaramaiah’s insistence, Rizwan Arshad also secured a ministerial berth. With three Muslim ministers already in the cabinet, it became difficult even for the high command to consider Tanveer Sait’s name. Had one more MLA from the Muslim community—which has remained loyal to the Congress for decades—been accommodated, it would not have caused any major problem. Instead, appointing two Muslim ministers from Bengaluru itself raised eyebrows within the Congress party.
Before the Congress high command instructed that Zameer Ahmed Khan’s name be included despite Siddaramaiah’s objections, Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar had reportedly decided to induct his close associate N.A. Harris from Bengaluru and Tanveer Sait from Mysuru. Siddaramaiah, however, recommended Rizwan Arshad. The fact that Rizwan was preferred over Dinesh Gundu Rao, who has demonstrated unquestionable loyalty to the Congress, surprised many party workers.
Siddaramaiah, on the other hand, did not insist on making H.C. Mahadevappa a minister. His political strategy ensured that his son Yathindra Siddaramaiah’s prominence in Mysuru remained unaffected.
Another interesting development deserves attention. Mankal Vaidya, a leader from a backward community, was initially included in the list of MLAs who were to take oath as ministers after receiving approval from the high command. However, his name disappeared from the revised list, which instead included S.S. Mallikarjun from the influential Shamanur family of Davanagere.
The Shamanur family, which treats Davanagere almost like its own political domain, has consistently managed to secure positions for its members by threatening to leave the party. Even during the by-election held after the death of Shamanur Shivashankarappa, there were strong demands to give the Congress ticket to a Muslim candidate. Yet, through political pressure, Mallikarjun ensured that the ticket went to his son Samarth.
What does this indicate? It suggests that the Congress is neither firmly committed to the most backward communities nor to Muslims. When the leadership repeatedly bows to influential political families, how can it claim to stand with the weaker sections?
Another issue deserves mention. Women constitute half the population. The Congress party’s supreme leader is Sonia Gandhi, and her daughter Priyanka Gandhi serves as the party’s General Secretary. Sonia Gandhi’s mother-in-law, Indira Gandhi, was a Prime Minister affectionately regarded as “Mother” by many marginalized communities.
Yet, despite having four women MLAs elected to the Karnataka Assembly, not even one was made a minister. It would have been meaningful if Kaneez Fatima, a Muslim woman who has twice been elected MLA from Kalaburagi North, had been given a cabinet berth.
Similarly, Roopa Shashidhar, daughter of K.H. Muniyappa, missed out because her father himself wanted to become a minister. Those who accuse Nayana Motamma of being sympathetic to the Sangh Parivar should remember that she was elected on a Congress ticket. Have no other Congress leaders ever associated with people linked to the Sangh Parivar? Are those making such accusations unaware of this? After all, wasn’t D.K. Shivakumar himself the person who sang the RSS prayer “Namaste Sada Vatsale” on the floor of the Assembly before becoming Chief Minister?
An even more mysterious development concerns Gayathri Shanthegowda, who established her victory as a Legislative Council member through the courts. Her name initially appeared on the list of prospective ministers but was later dropped. How did the name of a Kuruba leader, who had not yet even taken oath as an MLC, find its way onto the list?
According to an Asianet News report, she had sought a Congress ticket to contest the 2023 Assembly elections from Chikkamagaluru. When she was denied the ticket, Siddaramaiah reportedly assured her that she would first be made an MLC and later a minister. That is said to be why her name appeared on the list.
However, some television channels reported that Siddaramaiah was unhappy that Gayathri’s name had been included. Other media reports suggested that he preferred making her the Deputy Chairperson of the Legislative Council. Considering D.K. Shivakumar’s recent political moves, it is unlikely that he would have made such an error. If so, what influential force was backing Gayathri?
Legally, one does not need to be a member of either House of the Legislature to become a minister immediately; membership can be secured within six months. Therefore, Gayathri had no constitutional hurdle—she had simply not taken oath yet. Had she been made a minister, the Congress could at least have claimed credit for ensuring women’s representation.
Among the new faces inducted into the cabinet are active leaders such as Ajay Singh and T. Raghumoorthy. Vijayanand Kashappanavar and H.C. Balakrishna have also been given opportunities. Leaders like H.K. Patil, T.B. Jayachandra, and Dinesh Gundu Rao also deserved consideration.
Whenever a cabinet is formed or expanded, some dissatisfaction is inevitable. However, resentment arising from decisions driven more by self-interest than by public-oriented politics is not in the party’s best interests.
Should these developments be described as Siddaramaiah’s political game and D.K. Shivakumar’s struggle for survival? Or should one say that while D.K. Shivakumar was making one strategic move, Siddaramaiah was making an even more effective counter-move?
Siddaramaiah is a political strategist in the league of Ramakrishna Hegde, H.D. Deve Gowda, and J.H. Patel. He may have said that he will not contest the next election, but he has never said that he will retire from active politics. Unlike Deve Gowda, Siddaramaiah does not spend his time resting. While pursuing his many interests and taking adequate breaks, he continues to make calculated political moves.
“All is fair in love and war.” The efforts politicians make to remain influential are, in many ways, a form of political warfare.
Among H.D. Deve Gowda, B.S. Yediyurappa, and Siddaramaiah, who is the more accomplished political strategist? Is there really any doubt?
Written by T K Tyagaraj
